History Retained.

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
DevAdvocate said:
Do I really need to explain what I meant, I thought it was pretty clear?

It seems you are even denser that I first thought, and I thought you were pretty dense to begin with.
Click to expand...

You asked me if I shouted him down for making certain comments and called me a hypocrite.

Care to explain yourself?
 
You could say that about Celtic since the 60's !!!Chapper . This might go down as Celtic most successful time. Next season when it starts we could be going for 12 in a row .
 
harryhood67 said:
You could say that about Celtic since the 60's !!!Chapper . This might go down as Celtic most successful time. Next season when it starts we could be going for 12 in a row .
Click to expand...

I warned you a day or two to get a hold of the facts before you pipe up and you obviously never listened.

The third league win (in the 3iar) wasn't part of the ebt investigation (2001-2010)
 
Mibbees aye.....Mibbees naw.

You have taken a narrow view here. I would suggest that unless every player who received a payment via an EBT signed a new contract with the club in 2010 then it is reasonable to suggest that Rangers still fielded players who had been subject to dual contracts.

It would be a very weak argument to suggest that those players who received non contractual or dual contractual payments would definitely have been at Rangers if they had not been in receipt of these payments. Consideration should be given to the full length of each players contract. Don't you agree?
 
chapper said:
Why would I?

I know you're just trying to be pedantic but you're coming across as a little but dumb.
Click to expand...

Why would you?

Did you not ask me if I was going to have a go at RL for making a joke about Richard Gough?

Frank was the one who started with the child abuse "banter", you ignored that then had a go at me for not chinning RL.

Can you honestly not see how contradictory your comment was? You indulge in that sort of pish so you don't even notice when someone else does the same, then surprise surprise you notice someone else make a dodgy joke and you act as if i'm the forum Police, if you don't like what he said then tell him, don't come running to me to do your moaning.
 
Third win in the 3 in a row , achieved with players you didn't pay for . Even deluded chapper must see that as cheating .
 
RebelBhoy said:
Mibbees aye.....Mibbees naw.

You have taken a narrow view here. I would suggest that unless every player who received a payment via an EBT signed a new contract with the club in 2010 then it is reasonable to suggest that Rangers still fielded players who had been subject to dual contracts.

It would be a very weak argument to suggest that those players who received non contractual or dual contractual payments would definitely have been at Rangers if they had not been in receipt of these payments. Consideration should be given to the full length of each players contract. Don't you agree?
Click to expand...

Every single report and even comments from HMRC have stated 2001-2010, not 2001 to present day.
DevAdvocate said:
Why would you?

Did you not ask me if I was going to have a go at RL for making a joke about Richard Gough?

Frank was the one who started with the child abuse "banter", you ignored that then had a go at me for not chinning RL.

Can you honestly not see how contradictory your comment was? You indulge in that sort of pish so you don't even notice when someone else does the same, then surprise surprise you notice someone else make a dodgy joke and you act as if i'm the forum Police, if you don't like what he said then tell him, don't come running to me to do your moaning.
Click to expand...

**** me, do I have previous for taking objection to people talking about this subject? Do you? Therefor, how am I the hypocrite and you not?...

harryhood67 said:
Third win in the 3 in a row , achieved with players you didn't pay for . Even deluded chapper must see that as cheating .
Click to expand...

Explain how they weren't paid for?

Have we or have we not already been down this route many times before AND even had one of your boys back me up?

Is that you dodging the point?
 
When you went into administration did you owe Rapid Vienna and Man city money ??? Money that has failed to been paid since you got liquidated . You had players playing for you , that were out of your price range .Mind you that has been the way the last 20 years , Rangers at their happiest cheating .
 
I was merely stating the fact that a friend of mine came across richard gough in the toilets in Bennets, which, as you will be aware, is a nightclub , compliant with the relevant licencing laws and therefore entirely free from the presence of children ; chapper, your point is lost on me, I suspect it is also lost on you...still, its nice to howl at the moon sometimes.
 
harryhood67 said:
When you went into administration did you owe Rapid Vienna and Man city money ??? Money that has failed to been paid since you got liquidated . You had players playing for you , that were out of your price range .Mind you that has been the way the last 20 years , Rangers at their happiest cheating .
Click to expand...

We've been through this, your a twisted bitter fool. What's it like having that much hatred in your life?

RebelBhoy said:
So what?

Please answer the question.
Click to expand...

So what? So I'd be slightly more inclined to believe HMRC or even the press before some bitter helmet on a "fans" forum.

Your question? No, for reasons stated above.

rogueleader said:
I was merely stating the fact that a friend of mine came across richard gough in the toilets in Bennets, which, as you will be aware, is a nightclub , compliant with the relevant licencing laws and therefore entirely free from the presence of children ; chapper, your point is lost on me, I suspect it is also lost on you...still, its nice to howl at the moon sometimes.
Click to expand...

Sorry, what's your point caller?
 
chapper said:
So what? So I'd be slightly more inclined to believe HMRC or even the press before some bitter helmet on a "fans" forum.
Click to expand...

Very obviously you have misunderstood the question. We were discussing the titles that shall be removed from ex-football club Rangers FC and whether the 2010/11 title should be amongst them.

I asked you whether you agreed that this title should be amongst those that will be removed. I provided you with the reason I thought they should be.

What I did not ask was what the scope of the investigation of the tax authorities was.

I can see how you got confused. These things can be very complicated for some people. Never mind. You can answer now. Can't you?
 
RebelBhoy said:
Very obviously you have misunderstood the question. We were discussing the titles that shall be removed from ex-football club Rangers FC and whether the 2010/11 title should be amongst them.

I asked you whether you agreed that this title should be amongst those that will be removed. I provided you with the reason I thought they should be.

What I did not ask was what the scope of the investigation of the tax authorities was.

I can see how you got confused. These things can be very complicated for some people. Never mind. You can answer now. Can't you?
Click to expand...

BEELIN' AGAIN <laugh> <laugh>

Only ******s care so much about something so trivial <laugh>
 
chapper said:
Haha, you're too easy! Hypocrite? Where have I shouted down people for such taunts?...

The hypocrite is you, my pedigree chum.



You could say that about Celtic and the 60's...
Click to expand...

cmon chapper - read the friggin thread will you - thats what my comment was originally about!

dear oh dear
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back